A Constitutional loophole.

[Harshaw]

Back a few posts, someone noted that a President can be voted out of office. That's true. That doesn't mean that a majority of the voters can accomplish this, however. The President of the United States of America is selected not by a majority of the voters but by the Electoral College. That body is selected by each State. The states themselves have voting districts which are legally gerrymandered for political reasons. The members of the Electoral College are under no Constitutional restriction to mirror the will of the voters.

So ... a takeover by a political party ...

Enough voters can.

Voters can also change the makeup of Congress, including the Senate, every two years, and there's no Electoral College for that.

That's your mechanism.

You're trying very hard to pretend it doesn't matter, because you apparently want there to be some kind of Constitutional fault which would allow dictatorship.

 

[chuckiechan]

Enough voters can.

Voters can also change the makeup of Congress, including the Senate, every two years, and there's no Electoral College for that.

That's your mechanism.

You're trying very hard to pretend it doesn't matter, because you apparently want there to be some kind of Constitutional fault which would allow dictatorship.

But would any personal income taxes pass the “taxation without representation” demand that started the formation if the USA?

 

[jmotivator]

There's a difference here. The US, in its Afghanistan effort, most assuredly wasn't using its full resources in a do-or-die effort.

Regards.

An asymmetric war would make it impossible to use full resources. Most of the military might of the US government is in tanks and fighter jets and a navy that would be all but useless. The bulk of the fighting would be people armed with rifles on either side, and the bulk of the resources of the outgunned force would be against supply lines.

 

[Dittohead not!]

They sure seem upset about presidential power when it is Trump in office but how many of them ever take issue with the huge power grab FDR engaged in?

When the president gets more power, the presidency has more power from then on. Lyndon Johnson being able to declare a de facto war on his own led to the war in Iraq as well, and could well lead to one in Iran.

It's when an unhinged president like the current one gets in power that people begin to stand up and say, "Hey, the presidency has too much power!'

and, by then, it's too late.

 

[Harshaw]

When the president gets more power, the presidency has more power from then on. Lyndon Johnson being able to declare a de facto war on his own led to the war in Iraq as well, and could well lead to one in Iran.

It's when an unhinged president like the current one gets in power that people begin to stand up and say, "Hey, the presidency has too much power!'

and, by then, it's too late.

But no one's going to learn from this. They think Trump is somehow an aberration. They think "as long it's not another Trump." But there's always another Trump.

 

[Dittohead not!]

But no one's going to learn from this. They think Trump is somehow an aberration. They think "as long it's not another Trump." But there's always another Trump.

Unfortunate, but true. We ignore the Constitution and its balance of powers at the peril of liberty.

Power corrupts.

 

[Harshaw]

Unfortunate, but true. We ignore the Constitution and its balance of powers at the peril of liberty.

Power corrupts.

Noteworthy to this, Lord Acton didn't say that only about the person holding the power. He also included the people around the person holding power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hi! If I'm not mistaken, the attempt to pack the Supreme Court was struck down. Thus, the third member of the Constitutional triumvirate did its job. That doesn't say that it will always do so.

Regards.

NOpe , what happened was Charles Evan Hughes and others rolled over and started being FDR's bitches and completely rejected 150 years of precedent-including some of their own, after FDRs big win in 1936

 

[TurtleDude]

When the president gets more power, the presidency has more power from then on. Lyndon Johnson being able to declare a de facto war on his own led to the war in Iraq as well, and could well lead to one in Iran.

It's when an unhinged president like the current one gets in power that people begin to stand up and say, "Hey, the presidency has too much power!'

and, by then, it's too late.

Yet I would wager that most of Trump haters were big fans of what FDR and LBJ did

 

[Torus34]

Rather than continuing to respond to some of the comments, let me present this thought. We're witness to just how loyal a voter base can be when we see the polling data on those who are in full support of President of the United States of America Donald Trump. We're also witness to how a political party can accept all manner of goings-on as long as they feel their particular personal interests are being served. Now add in a number of supporters among the uber-wealthy, a continuation of Supreme Court staffing with 'conservatives' and the various federal justice functions with presidential loyalists, control of many of the state legislatures and full use of the legal gerrymandering function, control of who is appointed by the states as Electoral College members ... and Bob's your uncle as far as checks and balances go.

All that's needed, it seems, is a sufficiently charismatic leader who knows how to induce people to support him and enough willing to do so, and we can end up with a single party system.

Historical examples abound.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When the president gets more power, the presidency has more power from then on. Lyndon Johnson being able to declare a de facto war on his own led to the war in Iraq as well, and could well lead to one in Iran.

It's when an unhinged president like the current one gets in power that people begin to stand up and say, "Hey, the presidency has too much power!'

and, by then, it's too late.

When things like DACA/DAPA can be done by executive action alone then we have definitely gone over the edge. I agree that it is unlikely to be possible to get all of that toothpaste (executive law making power) back into the tube.

 

[Rich2018]

A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.

Where did the founders say they mistrusted democracy?


A previous president, Nixon, said an illegal act wasn't illegal if the president did it....it was never clear which illegal acts he was referring to or if in fact he meant any act, illegal under the laws of the USA.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yet I would wager that most of Trump haters were big fans of what FDR and LBJ did

Trump is no FDR. As for LBJ. he did sign civil rights into law, I'll give him that. If only he hadn't listened to the war hawks, he might have been a decent president.

 

[Dittohead not!]

When things like DACA/DAPA can be done by executive action alone then we have definitely gone over the edge. I agree that it is unlikely to be possible to get all of that toothpaste (executive law making power) back into the tube.

Putting the toothpaste back can be difficult.

When tariffs (taxes) can be imposed unilaterally by the president, then the executive branch has too much power.

but, the biggest giveaway of power of all was when the Congress gave up their power to declare war, and that happened a long time ago.

 

[TurtleDude]

Trump is no FDR. As for LBJ. he did sign civil rights into law, I'll give him that. If only he hadn't listened to the war hawks, he might have been a decent president.

thank God, we don't need another major destruction of the Bill of Rights like we got under FDR

 

[Dittohead not!]

thank God, we don't need another major destruction of the Bill of Rights like we got under FDR

Would you like to go back to the way it was in the '30s?

 

[TurtleDude]

Would you like to go back to the way it was in the '30s?

I would have liked the Supreme court to have respected the precedent established for the 150 years leading up to say 1937

 

[Dittohead not!]

I would have liked the Supreme court to have respected the precedent established for the 150 years leading up to say 1937

not sure what that means. I thought it was FDR you were upset with.

 

[TurtleDude]

not sure what that means. I thought it was FDR you were upset with.

well if you understand court history, most of the crap FDR and his Democratic allies in congress tried to foist on the US was struck down by the Supremes based on prior precedent. That would have been great if we never would have had crap like Wickard v Filburn etc. But after FDR won a big landslide and started to threaten court packing, the Supreme court started reversing itself and allowing crap that clearly was in violation of the Tenth Amendment

 

[Harshaw]

well if you understand court history, most of the crap FDR and his Democratic allies in congress tried to foist on the US was struck down by the Supremes based on prior precedent. That would have been great if we never would have had crap like Wickard v Filburn etc. But after FDR won a big landslide and started to threaten court packing, the Supreme court started reversing itself and allowing crap that clearly was in violation of the Tenth Amendment

Yeah, the federal Leviathan really did start there.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, the federal Leviathan really did start there.

The boundaries the founders properly placed upon the federal government, were essentially erased by the FDR administration. The Wickard v Filburn idiocy is one of the most intellectually bankrupt decisions ever promulgated by a dishonest court.

 

[Harshaw]

The boundaries the founders properly placed upon the federal government, were essentially erased by the FDR administration. The Wickard v Filburn idiocy is one of the most intellectually bankrupt decisions ever promulgated by a dishonest court.

It was staggeringly bad, yes.

 

[Dittohead not!]

well if you understand court history, most of the crap FDR and his Democratic allies in congress tried to foist on the US was struck down by the Supremes based on prior precedent. That would have been great if we never would have had crap like Wickard v Filburn etc. But after FDR won a big landslide and started to threaten court packing, the Supreme court started reversing itself and allowing crap that clearly was in violation of the Tenth Amendment

Had to look that one up:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. ... The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies.

Alternatives:
Allow over production of wheat, leading to a price crash, leading to farmers not planting wheat, leading to shortages........ or
regulate the production of wheat to avoid such a boom and bust.

It was a lack of regulation of the housing market and mortgages that led to the recession of '08.

 

[TurtleDude]

Had to look that one up:



Alternatives:
Allow over production of wheat, leading to a price crash, leading to farmers not planting wheat, leading to shortages........ or
regulate the production of wheat to avoid such a boom and bust.

It was a lack of regulation of the housing market and mortgages that led to the recession of '08.

it was a complete power grab that violated the tenth amendment. No one with a straight face could claim the founders intended that sort of federal power. It essentially allowed congress to pass any law it wanted to as long as it merely stated that it affected interstate commerce.

 

[Dittohead not!]

it was a complete power grab that violated the tenth amendment. No one with a straight face could claim the founders intended that sort of federal power.

I'm sure they didn't.

Could the states have regulated the production of wheat on their own?